Open Carry Page 3

Started by Monophobia June 27th, 2014 10:45 PM
  • 3482 views
  • 67 replies
Well, really, the statement would still be true, depending on the amendment. The U.S. is so stuck on how "perfect" the Bill of Rights is, or even the Constitution, that even if it seems out of context in this day and age, they refuse to change anything big (such as the second amendment). It's ridiculous, really. This isn't the 1700's. A lot of things from back then don't apply anymore.
No, it's not true.

The point I was trying to make is that it's ridiculous to make a statement like "This isn't the 1700's" or even "the founding fathers never forsaw [insert personal inconvenience here], so this should no longer apply." It's called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. The first amendment is the right to free speech, to petition the government, the freedom of or from religion, and the right of free assembly. The fourth amendment is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and that a warrant is required and must be supported by probable cause. These are agreed to be fundamental human rights.

My point was when you apply the logic of "it was written 200 years ago and is therefore obsolete" to these two amendments, it makes you look like a fascist and the same holds true with the second amendment, regardless of what gun-grabbers tell people. Rights should not disappear because of technological improvments or because it inconveniences some people. Otherwise, they're not rights, they're just priviledges that the government can take away at the drop of a hat and viewing them as nothing more than priviledges paves way for government to get away with so much BS it's sickening.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen 1 Week Ago
Posted June 4th, 2020
5,944 posts
12.2 Years
From the Mexican constitution:

"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."
Gun rights are not consider fundamental human rights. Compared to Mexicans, I'd have to say that American gun owners whine too much when it comes to regulations.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 27
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,189 posts
9.6 Years
No, it's not true.

The point I was trying to make is that it's ridiculous to make a statement like "This isn't the 1700's" or even "the founding fathers never forsaw [insert personal inconvenience here], so this should no longer apply." It's called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. The first amendment is the right to free speech, to petition the government, the freedom of or from religion, and the right of free assembly. The fourth amendment is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and that a warrant is required and must be supported by probable cause. These are agreed to be fundamental human rights.

My point was when you apply the logic of "it was written 200 years ago and is therefore obsolete" to these two amendments, it makes you look like a fascist and the same holds true with the second amendment, regardless of what gun-grabbers tell people. Rights should not disappear because of technological improvments or because it inconveniences some people. Otherwise, they're not rights, they're just priviledges that the government can take away at the drop of a hat and viewing them as nothing more than priviledges paves way for government to get away with so much BS it's sickening.
Honestly, I think it was a massive mistake on the part of the founding fathers to include references to technology in the Bill of Rights - because guns are technology. It's like the Georgia law from 1970 that said sending unsolicited sexual pictures is a felony unless the envelope has a warning on it - then a man who sent an unsolicited sexual picture to a woman through text got off because text messaging has no envelope or container (source, nsfw). They didn't anticipate that things will change in the future and technology may not be what they expected. This is why the other amendments are different, because the others don't mention technology, just sweeping rights that can be applied in various way in various times.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers. It's one thing to imagine cell phones, it's another thing entirely to anticipate guns that fire more than two rounds in a minute. The first telephone wasn't patented until 1876, but firearms were already around during the time of the founding father's lives.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 27
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,189 posts
9.6 Years
I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers. It's one thing to imagine cell phones, it's another thing entirely to anticipate guns that fire more than two rounds in a minute. The first telephone wasn't patented until 1876, but firearms were already around during the time of the founding father's lives.
That's what I mean - it's a technology, like any other. None of the other amendments mention technology, because they're meant to outlive all technologies because they're sweeping rights, while this one mentions arms, which are a specific technology.

They should have been able to tell from the difference of "arms" of bows and arrows to the difference of "arms" of guns that there was still progress to be made, even if they couldn't see the path.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

That's what I mean - it's a technology, like any other. None of the other amendments mention technology, because they're meant to outlive all technologies because they're sweeping rights, while this one mentions arms, which are a specific technology.

They should have been able to tell from the difference of "arms" of bows and arrows to the difference of "arms" of guns that there was still progress to be made, even if they couldn't see the path.
I like to think that they did, but decided that no matter how dangerous they become, it is still the right of a citizen to own one. Which I'm on board with because I hate the idea of me not being allowed access to something that some schmuck who isn't any more or less human than I am can have access to just because he has a badge. It's like wire tapping; illegal for citizens to do, but the sovereign leadership of our country (PATRIOT ACT)? A-ok. The hell? Follow your own rules, dammit.

I don't think it's too farfetched of an idea that someone during the drafting of the constitution thought, "hey, what if firearms get to the point where they can fire at least 100 rounds a minute?" and they took that into consideration and still decided to make the amendment anyway. People throughout history have imagined technologies long before they ever were invented. Leonardo Da Vinci has been stated to have conceptualized flying machines, armored vehicles, and calculators.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 27
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,189 posts
9.6 Years
I like to think that they did, but decided that no matter how dangerous they become, it is still the right of a citizen to own one. Which I'm on board with because I hate the idea of me not being allowed access to something that some schmuck who isn't any more or less human than I am can have access to just because he has a badge. It's like wire tapping; illegal for citizens to do, but the sovereign leadership of our country (PATRIOT ACT)? A-ok. The hell? Follow your own rules, dammit.

I don't think it's too farfetched of an idea that someone during the drafting of the constitution thought, "hey, what if firearms get to the point where they can fire at least 100 rounds a minute?" and they took that into consideration and still decided to make the amendment anyway. People throughout history have imagined technologies long before they ever were invented. Leonardo Da Vinci has been stated to have conceptualized flying machines, armored vehicles, and calculators.
I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers.
You seem to be flipping your position here. Which is your position - that the founding fathers likely could not have imagined how guns are today, or that it's not farfetched to think they did?


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

You seem to be flipping your position here. Which is your position - that the founding fathers likely could not have imagined how guns are today, or that it's not farfetched to think they did?
I wasn't aware that I was looking like I was flipping positions, sorry for the confusion.

The second one.

But I think we're getting too off-topic here, because this thread was about open-carry laws, not what founding fathers intended with the second amendment as a whole, so I'm going to stop right here.

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon

Age 27
Non-binary
With the Birds
Seen January 9th, 2015
Posted January 9th, 2015
3,417 posts
11.7 Years
Again, I frankly feel that a lot of people are missing the point. It's not about giving everyone and their mother a gun so that we can shoot it up or some stupid ♥♥♥♥.

To reiterate, Open Carry is basically the concept that you can hold a gun that is clearly visible with you at any time. This is opposed to Concealed Carry, which means you have a gun obscured - this is much more controlled than Open Carry, usually. I feel that while in a federal or statewide sense that this is alright, I believe that smaller organizations such as cities, businesses and colleges have the right to disallow such content. This is pretty much how it works in many places that have open carry, so I don't really see what the problem is. A lot of the bickering from the open carry movement has to do more with these private rights, and being able to say that they are "unconstitutional". But the reality is, they aren't. Private organizations can do whatever the hell they want.

Where it gets tricky is public organizations, such as schools, government buildings and cities, but personally, I feel that they, in this case, have the right to abstain from allowing firearms on their premises, because of issues with safety.

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon

Age 27
Non-binary
With the Birds
Seen January 9th, 2015
Posted January 9th, 2015
3,417 posts
11.7 Years
i laugh when people who are so vigilant to keep the ammendment give the argument of "why don't i get to keep my gun and someone from the government does just because he has a badge"...

well son, there's this thing called training in fields where you're required to keep a firearm to protect you in your job, like policemen.
it's a great thing guns are as regulated as they should be to keep citizens of the u.s. safer from chances of harm.if any idiot off the block had a gun we'd have a ton of school and home shootings and such. oh, wait a minute, these kinds of situations happen ALL THE TIME.
This is a gross oversimplification of how gun laws actually work and you're really doing a severe disservice to your opposition and your own argument by straw manning them so much.

Again, to reiterate:
Open Carry is basically the concept that you can hold a gun that is clearly visible with you at any time. This is opposed to Concealed Carry, which means you have a gun obscured - this is much more controlled than Open Carry, usually.
People who support Open Carry, or at least conventional Open Carry and not "LOL LET'S GO TO McD'S WITH AN M-16 ON OUR BACKS" Open Carry believe that people have the right, in situations where it is not forbidden (such as when a private establishment forbids them), to have guns. Frankly, people should have the right to possess firearms, because it is used for many other purposes besides just "shooting people". More dangerous firearms are more regulated than less dangerous ones. There are many laws regarding firearms because of their danger, like how alcohol has regulations. Many people believe that gun laws are fairly adequate, with some minor adjustments to how regulated various firearms are on either side.

In addition, the reason why the 2nd amendment exists in the first place is because it places power in the people. It allows people to protect themselves in situations where they feel threatened by wrongful authority. While in many cases it might just be like some crazy paranoid drivel, it is also part of what prevents the government from completely clamping down on the country and forcing a regime on everyone. People don't like to argue with a shotgun. Of course, this is less relevant today as it was when it was first instantiated, but it still plays an important role.

Again, guns are also most times used for sport, not for murder. But most people wouldn't read a news article about a hunter killing a deer or hitting a clay pigeon.

when did i even say that i did in my last post
Because your analogy is actually drawing from the same logic as the prohibitionists. Unfortunately, life is not so simple.

uoneko

space princess

Age 21
Female
california
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 16th, 2014
42 posts
6.2 Years
This is a gross oversimplification of how gun laws actually work and you're really doing a severe disservice to your opposition by straw manning them so much.

[.....]

Because your analogy is actually drawing from the same logic as the prohibitionists. Unfortunately, life is not so simple.
i'm really confused what you're standing for when you use the term "your opposition", as i thought we were generally agreeing on the same viewpoint, but ok. i'm just trying to get my point across and i tend to oversimplify things when doing so. twocows' view just gets me irritated; i lost a bit of control with my own personal issues on the topic. my bad.

the quote was, to me, humorous and relevant. it's not my quote, it's not my analogy. it's the original writer's. but yeah, i guess it was implied.

my apologies for both comments.

my friend code is 0061-0429-2432
my friend safari is steel, with mawile and forretress

Atomic Pirate

I always win.

Male
Somewhere.
Seen September 22nd, 2014
Posted July 10th, 2014
930 posts
9.4 Years
Uh, yeah he is using tax payers dollars for vacations.
Source that isn't a right-wing/selfish little kid libertarian site?

And I notice you didn't mention the "FEMA camps" and "black helicopters". I assume then you believe in them? If so, then you have absolutely zero credibility.
FC: 2148-8142-2372

PM me if you add me.

My Friend Safari is Water-type, with Gyarados, Azumarill, and Octillery.

Monophobia

Already Dead

Age 21
Male
Ohio, U.S.A.
Seen August 15th, 2015
Posted July 29th, 2015
294 posts
6.5 Years
...I hate the idea of me not being allowed access to something that some schmuck who isn't any more or less human than I am can have access to just because he has a badge.
This is sort of off-topic, but...I'm just wondering what you have against the government. I know things are sketchy, and you hear all of these conspiracy theories made up by weird guys who live in their parent's basements, but seriously? Police officers (assuming that's what you're referring to here) are professionally trained to use their weapons for self-defense and the protection of citizens. They don't rub it in your face that they have a gun and you don't.

What you're basically saying here is "I want it because they have something I don't". That's kind of what this whole gun-rights thing boils down to in my opinion.
Gambler of Fate

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 27
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,189 posts
9.6 Years
This is sort of off-topic, but...I'm just wondering what you have against the government. I know things are sketchy, and you hear all of these conspiracy theories made up by weird guys who live in their parent's basements, but seriously? Police officers (assuming that's what you're referring to here) are professionally trained to use their weapons for self-defense and the protection of citizens. They don't rub it in your face that they have a gun and you don't.

What you're basically saying here is "I want it because they have something I don't". That's kind of what this whole gun-rights thing boils down to in my opinion.
There are uncountable instances of police officers abusing their authority towards citizens. No one is crazy or a conspiracy theorist for feeling uncomfortable around police. There was just another case where a police officer claimed a woman was resisting arrest so he tackled her down, straddled her on the ground, and punched her in the head over and over and over. It was caught on videotape. The police report, which was written assuming no one would have a video of the actual altercation, said that "a plain clothes, off-duty officer assisted in applying the handcuffs."

I'm no conspiracy theorist but it's reasonable to be wary of police officers, considering the long and storied history of police brutality.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 30
Male
Michigan
Seen 3 Days Ago
Posted 1 Week Ago
4,307 posts
11.5 Years
twocows' view just gets me irritated; i lost a bit of control with my own personal issues on the topic. my bad.
Which part of what I said did you disagree with and why?
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

uoneko

space princess

Age 21
Female
california
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 16th, 2014
42 posts
6.2 Years
it happened a little while ago, when i told my story of my friend being attacked and i misunderstood your rebuttal as victim shaming, which i realize now it wasn't. again, my bad.

my friend code is 0061-0429-2432
my friend safari is steel, with mawile and forretress

Monophobia

Already Dead

Age 21
Male
Ohio, U.S.A.
Seen August 15th, 2015
Posted July 29th, 2015
294 posts
6.5 Years
There are uncountable instances of police officers abusing their authority towards citizens. No one is crazy or a conspiracy theorist for feeling uncomfortable around police. There was just another case where a police officer claimed a woman was resisting arrest so he tackled her down, straddled her on the ground, and punched her in the head over and over and over. It was caught on videotape. The police report, which was written assuming no one would have a video of the actual altercation, said that "a plain clothes, off-duty officer assisted in applying the handcuffs."

I'm no conspiracy theorist but it's reasonable to be wary of police officers, considering the long and storied history of police brutality.
Not really sure why you're telling me about these cases, since I never said police officers weren't prone to do awful things (they are human, after all), I merely said that they were trained professionally to use guns and are not rubbing it in people's faces.
Gambler of Fate